justlookinla
Regular Member
You're speaking in the meaningless gibberish of generalizations. Give a specific example.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Every truth you touch.
You distort a scientific theory into saying things it has never said, for starters.
Are you going to address the scientific theory of evolution, or not? Are you capable of an adult conversation?
Oh no, I can assure you I'm going to participate.
Since this is a sub-forum about creation and evolution, it would follow that the discussions would be about creation and evolution.
I disagree with Justlookinlaism, which is what they are referencing.
Of course, you can't deal with this topic honestly. You refuse to discuss the actual science, and instead distort the truth. Why is that?
Oh no, I can assure you I'm going to participate.
Since this is a sub-forum about creation and evolution, it would follow that the discussions would be about creation and evolution.
Maybe not. What's your view on Alabama winning yet another national championship this year?
The idea of an accident presupposes that there is some kind of entity whose plan had failed at some point as opposed to no entity at all.
Even so, how is an accident necessarily a bad thing? Potato chips were an accident. Plenty of good people in the world were accidents.
And if accidents are a bad thing, does that somehow make them an impossibility?
I never understood this whole "you believe it was all an accident" argument from any angle I've ever seen it played.
The dissent from Darwin is questioning the view that all of life is completely, totally, only, solely by naturalistic means, which is a basic teaching of Darwinism.
You refuse to discuss the scientific theory of evolution. How can you claim to be a participant when you refuse to address the science?
Here is the deal, Collins believes in God, like some scientists do. He also fully embraces the TOE as stated and he makes that quite obvious. Just seems to think this cause some sort of problem, but it is a problem that is manufactured by justlookinlaism.
Collins, as others do, have a personal belief that a God is behind evolution and that is peachy. Anyone can add a non-falsifiable factor to be behind evolution and pick and choose your non-falsifiable factor at your whim.
One could state; aliens from another planet are behind evolution. Could anyone prove them wrong?
Will Alabama have your God on their side?
Every time you use the phrase "atheistic Darwinist creationism" you are distorting the truth. You refuse to deal with the science, and instead fill the gap with name calling. You are acting like a child.
I'm addressing the inherently atheistic creationist view which claims that humanity is entirely, solely, completely by naturalistic means. So for, nobody's given any scientific evidence for such a view. It's simply one of several creationist views which is based on faith.
If you have scientific evidence that humanity is the result of only, solely, completely, totally naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago, present it.
However, that is not what the statement actually says. I also find it strange that Dr. Francis Collins is not listed as a signator of the document, especially since, according to you, he completely disagrees with the view that the development of "all of life is completely, totally, only, solely by naturalistic means".
Why would he not sign it? Do you think he was overlooked when it was circulated to all the other scientists?
I mean, he was only led the Human Genome Project, and was presented little awards like the National Medal of Science and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, among others.
So, I guess his standing in the scientific community could have resulted in the DI deciding not to ask him if he agreed with the statement.
In order to not teach "atheistic" material, how should our schools teach evolution. Should they include a God or pantheon of gods in the material taught, even though the theory of evolution does not mention a God or pantheon of gods?Atheistic Darwinist creationism is what's being taught in our schools today for the truth. There is no distorting of the truth in that statement, but a plain statement of truth.
In order to not teach "atheistic" material, how should our schools teach evolution.
Should they include a God or pantheon of gods in the material taught, even though the theory of evolution does not mention a God or pantheon of gods?
Should cosmology be taught differently since the current theory of how stars are created does not mention any God or gods?
How is this inclusion of gods to be performed without infringing upon some students freedom of religion?
No. It's not. It's all there is evidence for (except the part where it's accidental, that's your own invention as someone who is making a presupposition).
There is no evidence for the creationist view that humanity was created only, solely, completely and totally by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.
I don't know will they.
But again, will God be on Alabama's side?
You did read 9 and 10, didn't you?No, according to his website he completely disagrees with the view that the creation of all life is completely, totally, only, solely by naturalistic forces....
"We at BioLogos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today. While we accept the science of evolution, we emphatically reject evolutionism. Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose."
He didn't sign it because he doesn't agree with the statement especially the purpose behind it. He is opposed to intelligent design as put forth by the intelligent design advocates.I don't know why he didn't sign it. Maybe by now he has, but it doesn't matter either way, his website presents his view of "evolutionism", i.e., the rejection of the view that humanity is the creation of an entirely naturalistic process.
Yeah, we know.I dunno.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?